2008 Cl63 Vs S55 Amg Olympic
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 E63 AMG
.........Secondly, if you are right about the 63 octane setting, then this represents a flaw in the 63 cars, especially for a car that will be widely distributed world wide. It will be like an olympic athlete that can only win a race in Mars, but not on earth. He then tells his rival....."hey men, if we went to Mars to race, I'll beat you"
Ted
Ted
![](http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb76/vegastrashed/IMG_0727.jpg)
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
.............if it is all about the driver, why did you buy a 500HP 6.2L car?
..........of course the driver makes a difference, but at the end of the race you either lost or won, period! You may have reasons why you think you lost such as DA, traction, 91 octane etc. Those are for your own personal edification. Keep them to yopurself and try to fix those things and try later. You should congratulate the winner and accept that you lost.
Ted
..........of course the driver makes a difference, but at the end of the race you either lost or won, period! You may have reasons why you think you lost such as DA, traction, 91 octane etc. Those are for your own personal edification. Keep them to yopurself and try to fix those things and try later. You should congratulate the winner and accept that you lost.
Telling the winner that he/she only won because you had the wrong gas is just absurd. Why is this confusing for 63 owners.
Ted
I simply learn from each race, in 100% of my loses it is not my 63 that caused it IT IS ME!
I bracket race it is a test of the driver, I drive a 500 hp car cause it is fun.
Physics is a B*tch Mr. Baldwin just as Meteorology can be, you must understand both as well as hundreds of other factors to be a successful drag racer. My car HAS NEVER COST ME A RACE, its my failure to run the car or understand what it needs and does not.
Why you hate on the 63 and the owners is another question.
When a 55 posts a track time , you are quick to hop in the thread with your
"....much respect"
Ted
When a 63 makes a good pass you are SILENT
You glued your fingers and failed to type anything when MACHC5 hit 118.70 in his 63
or when Oldgixxer hit 12.12 in the 1/4 mile. You had nothing to post? Now as soon as another "Oh I am selling my 63 thread comes" you are right in the middle with your daily 63 affirmations . Please stop disrespecting what AMG drivers are doing, we are trying to improve and go faster, no excuses, this applies to ALL MERCEDES cars and is not model specific. Having too low an octane is not an excuse ITS A PHYSICAL FACT.
If your going to critisize and have a laugh over "excuses for a loss" than stop focusing on JUST THE 63, we all have excuses it a HUMAN ASPECT of life and has ZERO to do with the car you drive.
In this case all one needed to do is look at the weights of the two Mercedes Models
500-700 lbs is not insignificant. Having the wrong fuel is not insignificant. 63 drivers must use 93, and it certainly helps the 55 up top in my experience. One car traps 117 the other 112..Same day same track you figure it out.
We are a family and I encourage everyone to race legally on a track and enjoy your car regardless of what it is badged. To all my 55 brothers who have run alongside me, are you laughing at the 63?
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by juicee63; 02-26-2008 at 11:47 AM.
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
............You don't get it. whatever was done or not done to the 63 cars does not matter. You either won or lost a race. Very difficult to get this point accross to 63 owners, why?
.....Secondly, if you are right about the 63 octane setting, then this represents a flaw in the 63 cars, especially for a car that will be widely distributed world wide. It will be like an olympic athlete that can only win a race in Mars, but not on earth. He then tells his rival....."hey men, if we went to Mars to race, I'll beat you"
Ted
.....Secondly, if you are right about the 63 octane setting, then this represents a flaw in the 63 cars, especially for a car that will be widely distributed world wide. It will be like an olympic athlete that can only win a race in Mars, but not on earth. He then tells his rival....."hey men, if we went to Mars to race, I'll beat you"
Ted
I don't get the olympic athlete comment
![Confused](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif)
Your comment should've been like this: "It will be like an olympic athlete that can only lose a race in Mars, but not on earth. He then tells his rival.... 'hey men, if we went to Mars to race, I'll lose to you' "
Last edited by MB_Forever; 02-26-2008 at 01:02 PM.
#56
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL63 030 Blk/Blk
I've looked around at various publications including drag times, http://www.dragtimes.com/
I don't see any difference between 55's and 63's in both 1/4 mile and 0-60. In fact stock cars gernerally do better and the modified carls like Renntech test WORSE times.
Variables including driver’s ability make all the difference.
The CL63 is more than one generation apart and is totally state of the art in all important areas like mechanical, software, style, and comfort. So any meaningful comparison would favor the 216 unless you're a knucklehead.
I don't see any difference between 55's and 63's in both 1/4 mile and 0-60. In fact stock cars gernerally do better and the modified carls like Renntech test WORSE times.
Variables including driver’s ability make all the difference.
The CL63 is more than one generation apart and is totally state of the art in all important areas like mechanical, software, style, and comfort. So any meaningful comparison would favor the 216 unless you're a knucklehead.
Last edited by ieb; 02-26-2008 at 01:46 PM.
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
"Wasnt raining last night it was about 12.30am at olympic and overland and it wasnt me. I was just a passenger.
Should be my friend loves cars treats them like baby. Retarded I say. So ya he is getting rid of the CL currently in the process.
But I mean ya I was shocked that the 55 beat the 63. I was like errr what just happen dude. And he was like I dont know man. HAHAHA "
so you asked what happened. I explained it is due to the weight of the cars,
others said perhaps it was Octane. Mr. Ted Baldwin chimes in that 63 owners are comical and full of excuses when all many here did was point out Physical facts.
If your buddy wanted the fastest Benz he erred, thats a hella sexy auto but its not gonna put the hammer in a straight line on a 500 lb lighter similar hp vehicle. For you and For TED, its called P/W it is used in classification.
CL 63 is P/w=10
S55 P/w=9.2
The lower number the BETTER
Last edited by juicee63; 02-26-2008 at 02:33 PM.
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
I've looked around at various publications including drag times, http://www.dragtimes.com/
I don't see any difference between CL55 and CL63 in both 1/4 mile and 0-60. In fact stock cars gernerally do better and the modified carls like Renntech test WORSE times.
Variables including driver’s ability make all the difference.
The cars are more than one generation apart and the 216 is totally state of the art in all important areas like mechanical, software, style, and comfort. So any meaningful comparison would favor the 216 unless you're knucklehead.
I don't see any difference between CL55 and CL63 in both 1/4 mile and 0-60. In fact stock cars gernerally do better and the modified carls like Renntech test WORSE times.
Variables including driver’s ability make all the difference.
The cars are more than one generation apart and the 216 is totally state of the art in all important areas like mechanical, software, style, and comfort. So any meaningful comparison would favor the 216 unless you're knucklehead.
I agree similarly weighted cars, CL55 CL63 will be similar in a straight line.
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sin City
Posts: 1,862
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
2005 E55 AMG - - 2005 SL55 AMG - - - - - - 2006 SLK55 AMG - - - - - - 2013 Ducati Diavel AMG -
Personally, as an AMG owner, I may compete against other AMG Models, but in the end, I appreciate and respect All AMGs. I don’t think I’m alone on this one and hell, I’m one that talks a lot of BS!
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeG7r...eature=related
Guess the 63 in Asia runs differently here it looks like it hangs with the S55 little brother the E55.![Stick Out Tongue](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Guess the 63 in Asia runs differently here it looks like it hangs with the S55 little brother the E55.
![Stick Out Tongue](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Maybe I am confused. Looks to me like the car in the left lane (E55) catches and passes the car in the right.
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
FYI - When I set my record, I did it on 92 octane because 93 wasn't available.
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
The E55 did seem to pass but the CL held it off for 90% of the run, no beam to cross on this one..
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
Enzom, you should try a mix of 100 octane and 92 to try to land at 93 or 94 octane. You should see even better results
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
E55 was tuned for 91 from factory, so using 92 helped you due to adaptive nature. If you use the higher octane, the ECU adapts to some degree to increase power (slightly). Similarly, if you use low octane, the ECU adapts to rob you out of power (slightly) except that pushing the car hard repeatedly on low octane may damage the engine.
Enzom, you should try a mix of 100 octane and 92 to try to land at 93 or 94 octane. You should see even better results![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Enzom, you should try a mix of 100 octane and 92 to try to land at 93 or 94 octane. You should see even better results
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#64
Senior Member
63 is a great engine it just so happens there are better options to me. like the 600. I have smoked 2 separate cl63's. (with my 600) one was my buddy (sorda) who has since traded it in on m6 convertible..
the 63 sure are cooler looking though!
just my .02. I had an e55 as well and after driving an e63 about 100 miles I opted not to get it. the so called butt dyno felt slower and the power was not where i wanted it. it was too high.
anyways just some thoughts from a e55k owner and current CL600 owner.
the 63 sure are cooler looking though!
just my .02. I had an e55 as well and after driving an e63 about 100 miles I opted not to get it. the so called butt dyno felt slower and the power was not where i wanted it. it was too high.
anyways just some thoughts from a e55k owner and current CL600 owner.
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
............you can't be serious. First of all I think what you are saying is bull. The 55 has higher low end torque and
........secondly even if what you are saying is true (it is not), I never heard anyone credible say "hey men, wait for me I need to go and get higher octane gas so I can stand a chance when I race you." Besides, if you want to use 93 octane or race gas, then put same gas in both cars and the 55 will still win. I know you own a CL63 but the excuses seem to get more and more absurd.
Ted
both cars way about the same. The 55 apparently is faster.
........secondly even if what you are saying is true (it is not), I never heard anyone credible say "hey men, wait for me I need to go and get higher octane gas so I can stand a chance when I race you." Besides, if you want to use 93 octane or race gas, then put same gas in both cars and the 55 will still win. I know you own a CL63 but the excuses seem to get more and more absurd.
Ted
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
W216 is 4587 lbs CURB WEIGHT
W220 is 4035 lbs CURB WEIGHT
Last edited by juicee63; 02-26-2008 at 07:00 PM.
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
I run with 93 octane every day. The closest gas station to Atco only sells 92. (I have found no benefit at all in running 100 octane except that my wallet is much lighter - so there is a weight savings.) The point I was making in bringing up the octane is that my best time was run on 92 octane, not on the 93 I run on most of the time. Whatever theoretical incremental hp increase there might be running 93 vs. 92 on my car was not present that day. The best I managed on 93 octane was a measly 11.801.
Just got back a few minutes ago and I need to head back down to feed the kids or my wife will kill me. Quick update.
We had a great time. Started running at about 11:00. Track was dry from the get-go but cold for a little bit. I left at about 4:45
I did not break my record. I think my best was an 11.834 @ 118 and change. Yesterday's rain left the launching area very unfriendly to street tires.
, but I did not dead-hook a single run.
.
There were a couple of record runs. MACHC5's CLK63 Black series ran impressively at 12.1 at 117 plus like clockwork. It sounds AMAZING. And another 63 record was set. But I will let the holder make his announcement.![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
We had a great time. Started running at about 11:00. Track was dry from the get-go but cold for a little bit. I left at about 4:45
I did not break my record. I think my best was an 11.834 @ 118 and change. Yesterday's rain left the launching area very unfriendly to street tires.
So the 1.71's and 1.72's that I regularly hit last time down there were not to be seen today. I caught a couple of high 1.7's
Most 60' times were in the high 1.8's and 1.9's
There were a couple of record runs. MACHC5's CLK63 Black series ran impressively at 12.1 at 117 plus like clockwork. It sounds AMAZING. And another 63 record was set. But I will let the holder make his announcement.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by juicee63; 02-26-2008 at 09:06 PM.
#68
MBWorld Fanatic!
The 08 63's in the CL and S are much heavier than the previous models.
Across all model lines looks like the 63 is heavier,
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
You ran your record time at ATCO, you also achieved an 11.801 and 11.805 same day at ATCO. What day was your 93 octane run at ATCO also duplicating your 11.801 on the 92. You actually ran a best of 11.83 on 12/14 according to your post below
I would bet a large chunk of money had you pulled a 1.71 60ft time on 12/14 you would have easily broken your record ET and Trap. Car would have hit low11.71-11.75@118.77-119.38 had you obtained traction. Octane likely does not help or hurt your car when it is within range of the ECU tune. Use 89 and you will not see any record runs. This is what the 63's are forced to do in States where 93 is not available. 91 is two points lower so the equivalant octane for you would be 89 not 92 if you wish to draw a performance comparison.
I would bet a large chunk of money had you pulled a 1.71 60ft time on 12/14 you would have easily broken your record ET and Trap. Car would have hit low11.71-11.75@118.77-119.38 had you obtained traction. Octane likely does not help or hurt your car when it is within range of the ECU tune. Use 89 and you will not see any record runs. This is what the 63's are forced to do in States where 93 is not available. 91 is two points lower so the equivalant octane for you would be 89 not 92 if you wish to draw a performance comparison.
At the November rental, I started with 93 Octane and ran in the 11.8's. Fuel light went on. Made another run or two and headed to the nearest gas station to avoid running out of gas (S'up, Gixxer?
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
A month later, I ran with 93 octane. Because the gas station at the track was open, I put 20 bucks of 100 Octane in there, followed by another 20. So I was running with at least 93 octane and probably more. The 11.834 (or 11.854) that I ran that day was my best for that day. I ran a 1.732 60' on that run, which is not far off my 1.71 from my November 11.775 run. If my fuel situation were reversed, I might argue that the only reason that I "lost" 0.06 seconds and about 1 mph on a cooler day with a much more favorable DA and very similar 60' times was because of my lower octane. But that isn't the case.
Point here is that, at least in my experience, more octane does not equal better e/t's on a bone stock 55. I can't speak for the 63, but I don't think you would lose 3/10th on 2 points of octane alone. Try an experiment next time you guys hit the track. One of you run racing gas/91 in the morning, the other run pure 91 octane. Then switch fuels and see what it looks like at the end of the day. Should be interesting.
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
Point here is that, at least in my experience, more octane does not equal better e/t's on a bone stock 55. I can't speak for the 63, but I don't think you would lose 3/10th on 2 points of octane alone. Try an experiment next time you guys hit the track. One of you run racing gas/91 in the morning, the other run pure 91 octane. Then switch fuels and see what it looks like at the end of the day. Should be interesting.
![EEK!](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/eek.gif)
Also, Mercedes/AMG themselves confirmed that 63 models require a minimum of 93 octane for maximum performance.
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Juicee -
At the November rental, I started with 93 Octane and ran in the 11.8's. Fuel light went on. Made another run or two and headed to the nearest gas station to avoid running out of gas (S'up, Gixxer?
). Came back and ran 11.775.
A month later, I ran with 93 octane. Because the gas station at the track was open, I put 20 bucks of 100 Octane in there, followed by another 20. So I was running with at least 93 octane and probably more. The 11.834 (or 11.854) that I ran that day was my best for that day. I ran a 1.732 60' on that run, which is not far off my 1.71 from my November 11.775 run. If my fuel situation were reversed, I might argue that the only reason that I "lost" 0.06 seconds and about 1 mph on a cooler day with a much more favorable DA and very similar 60' times was because of my lower octane. But that isn't the case.
Point here is that, at least in my experience, more octane does not equal better e/t's on a bone stock 55. I can't speak for the 63, but I don't think you would lose 3/10th on 2 points of octane alone. Try an experiment next time you guys hit the track. One of you run racing gas/91 in the morning, the other run pure 91 octane. Then switch fuels and see what it looks like at the end of the day. Should be interesting.
At the November rental, I started with 93 Octane and ran in the 11.8's. Fuel light went on. Made another run or two and headed to the nearest gas station to avoid running out of gas (S'up, Gixxer?
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
A month later, I ran with 93 octane. Because the gas station at the track was open, I put 20 bucks of 100 Octane in there, followed by another 20. So I was running with at least 93 octane and probably more. The 11.834 (or 11.854) that I ran that day was my best for that day. I ran a 1.732 60' on that run, which is not far off my 1.71 from my November 11.775 run. If my fuel situation were reversed, I might argue that the only reason that I "lost" 0.06 seconds and about 1 mph on a cooler day with a much more favorable DA and very similar 60' times was because of my lower octane. But that isn't the case.
Point here is that, at least in my experience, more octane does not equal better e/t's on a bone stock 55. I can't speak for the 63, but I don't think you would lose 3/10th on 2 points of octane alone. Try an experiment next time you guys hit the track. One of you run racing gas/91 in the morning, the other run pure 91 octane. Then switch fuels and see what it looks like at the end of the day. Should be interesting.
I agree 100 will not do anything unless your car is tuned for it. I think the wind on 12/14 may have also hindered your runs.
I refuse to ever use 91 on the track again, we have done the 91 runs and its really bad for trap speed, ET is not as effected but trap speed drops 2-3 mph.
My car on 91 ran 12.30's @113 on 93 (100 mixed with 91) 12.1-12.2@115.60's
Your 55 truly amazes me, I wish you all the best at your next rental, use what worked for you. BTW a 1.73 vs a 1.71 is worth 4x as much by the end of the run so that is 8/100ths nearly 1/10 so an 11.834-.08= 11.754
Your 60ft is the most important , this is why you have the fastest stock 55 on the planet, its all in your 60ft.
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 325
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003-E55 2011-C63 2016-C63S
No need to chill. The 63 guys are just standing up for what they know. No worries and no one will get hurt here. It's just a war of words and look what happened; they proved that the 63 engines DO require 93 octane. I didn't know that.
Personally, as an AMG owner, I may compete against other AMG Models, but in the end, I appreciate and respect All AMGs. I don’t think I’m alone on this one and hell, I’m one that talks a lot of BS!
Personally, as an AMG owner, I may compete against other AMG Models, but in the end, I appreciate and respect All AMGs. I don’t think I’m alone on this one and hell, I’m one that talks a lot of BS!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Question...... is 98ron hard to find in US or is it too expensive? I always use 98ron in Australia and 100ron whenever I find a garage that’s selling it. To me it is sacrilege to use a lesser grade fuel in a performance car. Thats pollution of the fuel tank!
#73
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'm with you Havoc. How can anyone resent another AMG model just because its 1/10th slower over the 1/4 or not as easy to mod etc. That’s such a schoolboy ****
I don’t get that.
Question...... is 98ron hard to find in US or is it too expensive? I always use 98ron in Australia and 100ron whenever I find a garage that’s selling it. To me it is sacrilege to use a lesser grade fuel in a performance car. Thats pollution of the fuel tank!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Question...... is 98ron hard to find in US or is it too expensive? I always use 98ron in Australia and 100ron whenever I find a garage that’s selling it. To me it is sacrilege to use a lesser grade fuel in a performance car. Thats pollution of the fuel tank!
The California cars with big N/A motors Z06 included suffer due to the 91 max octane at the pump. 91 is Premium here and it really slows many of the cars especially the guys who really go WOT alot.. There are "race" gas pumps with a 100 octane rating so you can spend 8.50/gallon and mix it.
AMG has commented to members here that tracking the 63 on 91 could DAMAGE the engine!
Thanks for sharing your opinion as I know the folks down Under KNOW Cars
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think you are off base on this one. The CL63 weighs about 300lbs more than a CL55 (about 4,250lbs). The S55 weighs only about 50lbs more than the CL55. I am not sure it makes much difference for the comparison. I think the 55 engines were better suited for the heavier cars in the AMG lineup. That doesn't mean that I am trashing the 63 engine...which is a technological marvel in its own right. The 63 is just slightly less suited for moving such mass. The freer reving 63 engine is much better suited for a lighter ...more sporty car (CLK BS is a perfect fit).
Tom
#75
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
I'm with you Havoc. How can anyone resent another AMG model just because its 1/10th slower over the 1/4 or not as easy to mod etc. That’s such a schoolboy ****
I don’t get that.
Question...... is 98ron hard to find in US or is it too expensive? I always use 98ron in Australia and 100ron whenever I find a garage that’s selling it. To me it is sacrilege to use a lesser grade fuel in a performance car. Thats pollution of the fuel tank!
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
Question...... is 98ron hard to find in US or is it too expensive? I always use 98ron in Australia and 100ron whenever I find a garage that’s selling it. To me it is sacrilege to use a lesser grade fuel in a performance car. Thats pollution of the fuel tank!
Juicee, where's it at? Somewhere on Pico?